Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it fully discloses: the operation is a real delete (not just a status change), moves content to Trash as one recoverable unit, permanently deletes after 30 days, and requires an editor role. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior trailing into details, exclusions, and permission requirements. The final 'Required: id (integer)' is redundant with the schema, so not a perfect 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with cascading effects.The description covers what happens (trash, one unit, permanent after 30 days), alternatives, caveats, and permissions. No output schema exists, but return values are not essential for a delete action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema already documents id as required integer with 100% coverage. The description repeats 'Required: id (integer)' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Move a folder to the Trash, taking its sub-folders and notes with it as ONE recoverable unit.' It clearly distinguishes itself from containers-restore (restoring from trash) and containers-update (archiving) by explicitly labeling this as a real delete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'to retire a folder while keeping it in the Archive, use containers-update with archived: true instead.' It also gives a precondition (editor role on every folder) for using the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.